The Philosophy Forums at OnlinePhilosophyClub.com aim to be an oasis of intelligent in-depth civil debate and discussion. Topics discussed extend far beyond philosophy and philosophers. What makes us a philosophy forum is more about our approach to the discussions and debates than what subject is being debated. Common topics include but are absolutely not limited to neuroscience, psychology, sociology, cosmology, religion, political theory, ethics, and so much more.

Use this philosophy forum to discuss and debate general philosophy topics that don't fit into one of the other categories.

This forum is NOT for factual, informational or scientific questions about philosophy (e.g. "What year was Socrates born?"); such homework-help-style questions can be asked and answered on PhiloPedia: The Philosophy Wiki. If your question is not already answered on the appropriate PhiloPedia page, then see How to Request Content on PhiloPedia to see how to ask your informational question using the wiki.

I am saying, for now, that we keep what we know, determinism and choice, and not assume there is a problem. There might be, there might not be.

In terms of logic, there has to be a problem with accepting choice and determinism.

I can see where materialism can coexist with free choice, as we may not have all the facts about the rules which govern physical things. Or, cause and effect could apply to material things, and my will could be something not material. But, as I accept the fact that I am choosing (I do), I am denying in the process the possibility of determinism.

I might seem like a religious nut to some of you for believing I am free to choose. Yet, denying that I can choose requires more 'faith' than I have. In other words, I have more faith in my own experience and my senses (which is all I really have to go on) than I have in an unproven theory.

I can assent to the idea that these things could coexist for reasons that are beyond my capacity to understand. But, I can't concede that anything I've ever seen begins to make it seem remotely possible, including your attempts here, though I appreciate the effort.

Maybe we are stumbling over the definition of determinism here. Cause and effect and determinism are the same thing?
I too agree we can choose. We are just slightly in disagreement about what a free choice is. This is more conceptual than practical, as in we both feel free to have coffee or not with breakfast.
The only area we seem to completely disagree is that logically I don't think choice and cause and effect are necessarily mutually exclusive. I think that this has to be an option given our current knowledge. Even if it is an option that seems inexplicable.

I don't know what explains consciousness, and neither do you. Agnosticism is a fair response, with an opinion on the side if you wish. We've both chosen our opinion, yet you've also shut the door on being agnostic about the final answer. It's too easy to fold your arms and think you have all the answers because you have some answers that have proven useful. When something different comes along that does not fit the formula, then maybe you should consider the idea that the formula doesn't cover everything, instead of torquing the formula to try to make it fit.

Chewybrian writes "I don't know what explains consciousness." The answer to that is energy, as energy can produce consciousness. For the basic unit of existence, one could say Primary Matter or Urstoff, but energy expresses best what the basic unit of existence can be. Energy can turn into an electron for more power in organic life, so energy can make an animal conscious. And in man it is the ego that controls thinking. In this sense, we are energy, like everything else. But in another sense, when everybody is energy, we need our name to give us distinction.

So energy somewhat takes the place of god as the cause of everything, but energy is mostly a great mass and prayer would seem useless for that. Einstein made a great statement with mass equals energy, because that explains everything but the theory of relativity is a fact when something is relative to something else, it is a fact that does not explain anything.

It says in the OP that you will never experience your cessation, but because of a slow heart rate I fell down unconscious, but I woke up again. I cannot remember falling down but I can remember answering questions to the emergency people so there is nothing to experience once cessation because it is just nothingness on death.

Energy does not explain consciousness, unless you can describe the process by which energy organises into forms capable of consciousness as we know it.

Energy is not the right word for explaining consciousness, as we don't have to go back to the cause of existence. The ego or the 'I' represents the whole of the body, and in his interest to hear and see. But we need a whole consciousness to see what our chances are in this world. For that we have a brain because we need it like all the other organs in the body. And that should explain consciousness.

Energy does not explain consciousness, unless you can describe the process by which energy organises into forms capable of consciousness as we know it.

Energy is not the right word for explaining consciousness, as we don't have to go back to the cause of existence. The ego or the 'I' represents the whole of the body, and in his interest to hear and see. But we need a whole consciousness to see what our chances are in this world. For that we have a brain because we need it like all the other organs in the body. And that should explain consciousness.

Energy is not the right word for explaining consciousness, as we don't have to go back to the cause of existence. The ego or the 'I' represents the whole of the body, and in his interest to hear and see. But we need a whole consciousness to see what our chances are in this world. For that we have a brain because we need it like all the other organs in the body. And that should explain consciousness.

What about the consciousness of other intelligent species?

More consciousness for animals would not help, as they would only feel more of their bodily disadvantage.

But for the human condition, where older people are likely disqualified. It depends on the fact that we need to pursue the ability to understand. Most people are able to understand to their last day. There are facts around the existence and organic life that are not all understood. But believe is an assumption and not an understanding, so there is room for improvement.

Only something that consists out of energy and matter can exist by itself, So god exists only on the insistence of people without any connection to matter, only in the minds of people.

The immensity of energy and matter is shown by the Milky Way galaxy with billions of stars. They all seem to have most of the elements and it would be most interesting if there was another planet with organic life. Like the Earth is now circling the sun to keep from falling into it. And the Earth is circled by the moon to keep not falling on us, what nobody would survive. There are more planets following. It seems the attraction of the bigger bodies is going on till everything explodes and starts anew. What can be learned by that.

The immensity of energy and matter is shown by the Milky Way galaxy with billions of stars. They all seem to have most of the elements and it would be most interesting if there was another planet with organic life. Like the Earth is now circling the sun to keep from falling into it. And the Earth is circled by the moon to keep not falling on us, what nobody would survive. There are more planets following. It seems the attraction of the bigger bodies is going on till everything explodes and starts anew. What can be learned by that.

Assumptions about the fate of the universe seem to assume that this little biological adventure was just a little fluke, soon to snuffed out. Scientists, not allowed to speculate beyond the first degree, always posit the fate of the universe in terms of humongous cosmic forces continuing to chug along with all descendants of biology long gone.

However, in a universe so immense, with perhaps another a trillion years left of star formation, which is about as long as the life of current red dwarf stars, it beggars belief that at some stage life would not develop and grow like us but without self destructing.

Perhaps they will have a bigger planet with more resources, or perhaps be granted more time to develop by orbiting a longer lived star (an orange dwarf might be optimal) or maybe their philosophical and scientific history was less troubled, with progress less potted? At some stage a species or their sentient machines will conquer the problems of long haul space travel, and when that happens, that will change everything for their particular galaxy, at least.

Who knows what entities a billion years more advanced than us might achieve? And then project further from that in this long lived universe. The possibilities, which are basically inevitabilities given the spatial and temporal scale of the universe, are beyond mind blowing.

Does it make sense to have any emotions in regards to ones personal death? Does it make sense to feel sadness, anger, fear, etc. whether in regards to becoming nothingness or in regards to leaving behind all that you love? For upon becoming nothingness, one is not even aware of his becoming nothingness. Upon leaving behind all one loves, one is not even aware that he has left behind all that he loves. Why be afraid of your cessation when you will never actually experience your cessation? Why be sad that you will never see your child’s face again when you will never actually experience never seeing your child’s face again? Why have emotions in regards to something you will never actually even experience? And in this way, I am not sure that it is logical to have emotions in regards to ones personal death. Yet at the same time, alive, you do have awareness that there will come a day when you will no longer be. There will come a day when you will no longer see your child’s face. Even though [because this will happen upon your nothingness] you will have no awareness that it has happened, it will in fact still happen, and alive, you do know this. And in that sense, maybe it is logical to have emotions in regards to your own personal death. What do you think?

I have no fear of death because it is irrational to be afraid of something that you can never experience
It might be the end of consciousness but it is the end of suffering too which is also why I am not afraid
I was never afraid in the eternity before conception and equally will not be afraid in the one after life

Let's grow a kid to be unfamiliar of death the whole case mentioned above will be opposite.
Let me stop electromagnetic currents of brain without putting the brain in unconscious state the case would be different in such circumstances.

I terribly don't see nature behind the developed thoughts of man but i see the customs,cultures,learning through sorrounding and history behind this typical rise of this thought.

Why we laugh over jokes?Is this a special case of brain pulses?Big No.
We do because we learnt it from others called adaptation
Now only a fool can ask the question that why animals can't laugh,thats another lecture.

When we see a dead body we becomes sad but not sad over dead body of an animal which we eat?Why
Again adaptation

When we look at our loved ones and become happy how it happens?Because those were kept in our thoughts regarding time.Again adaptation

Whats the reason that every inquiry about mystical land of brain not yet discovered is reffered as nature?
Just rubbish

For instance Lacrimal glands of a kid can be trained even on laughter rather than weeping position or Bile regulation time can be altered,how it will happen?By nature or by Sense?What matters is adaptation.What is adaptation?Its not nature but customs of era set by millions and billions.Thats all

Second Phase Explanation(Nothingness):

Death is a process which defines the word end but not the absolute end,Nothing means existence-less process but death is shut down of brain and all its commanded organs and neurons.As this is a process so it can't be nothingness.After it body starts decomposing where billions of bacterias and thousands of insects play a role,thats also can't be nothingness.After it all sub particles & ingredients of body(Phosphorus,Calcium and all salts join the earth and be its part,thats also not nothingness.
People take the word nothingness in a very limited scale means zero but actually they want to deduce some supernatural connections are there or not there ,this is their - only self made proposition based actually on nothingness.
If they want to see nothingness after death why they don't bother to see nothingness before birth?Because they are in a very typical and awkward shell which suits them and the curse is they try to dominate others with their self made fake hypothesis.
Thats all from my side.